linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V10 1/3] irq: Allow to pass the IRQF

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1706202228490.2157@nanos>
Date:   Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:29:36 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, rafael@...nel.org, nicolas.pitre@...aro.org,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Vineet Gupta <vgupta@...opsys.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@...com>,
        Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>,
        Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>,
        Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Richard Cochran <rcochran@...utronix.de>,
        Ray Jui <ray.jui@...adcom.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>,
        "moderated list:ARM PORT" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "open list:SYNOPSYS ARC ARCH..." <linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/SAMSUNG EXYNO..." 
        <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V10 1/3] irq: Allow to pass the IRQF_TIMER flag with
 percpu irq request

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 04:05:07PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Jun 2017, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > > But, the API request_percpu_irq does not allow to pass a flag, hence specifying
> > > if the interrupt type is a timer.
> > > 
> > > Add a function request_percpu_irq_flags() where we can specify the flags. The
> > > request_percpu_irq() function is changed to be a wrapper to
> > > request_percpu_irq_flags() passing a zero flag parameter.
> > 
> > And exactly this change wants to be a separate patch. We do not make whole
> > sale changes this way. You should know that already and someone pointed
> > that out to you in some of the earlier versions.
> > 
> > > -int request_percpu_irq(unsigned int irq, irq_handler_t handler,
> > > -		       const char *devname, void __percpu *dev_id)
> > > +int request_percpu_irq_flags(unsigned int irq, irq_handler_t handler,
> > 
> > The function name sucks. The first time I read it, it meant request the per
> > cpu irq flags, which is not what you aim at, right?
> > 
> > Please make that __request_percpu_irq() for now and on -rc1 time provide a
> > patch set to convert all current request_percpu_irq() users to have the
> > extra argument and then remove the __request_percpu_irq() intermediate.
> 
> Ok, I will the change this way.
> 
> What about 2/3 and 3/3? Is it possible to take them with the
> __request_percpu_irq change?

The rest looks ok. Please repost.